Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

49 Ala. 360

Ex parte Hendree

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided June 15, 1873

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1873-06-15

Application by Scott Hendree and Morris Graham for a mandamus, or other remedial writ, to the Circuit Court of Dallas (Hon. M. J. Saffold presiding), to compel that court to set aside a judgment rendered at its October Term, 1872, dismissing a suit brought by said petitioners against John B. Phillips, and to restore the said cause to the trial docket.

Relies on Ex parte Jones · Steamboat Empire v. Ala. Coal Mining Co. · Ex parte Bottoms

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1873-06-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently June 1972

18 state decisions

6018731880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

BRICKELL, J.

¶1— The judgment of which the petitioners complain is final, and, if erroneous, would support an appeal. Such a judgment cannot be reversed or corrected by mandamus. Steamboat Empire v. Alabama Coal Mining Co. 29 Ala. 698; Ex parte Buttons, 46 Ala. 312; Ex parte Jones, 1 Ala. 15; Ex parte Hoyt, 13 Peters 279; Bank of Columbia v. Sweeny, 1 Peters, 567. Mandamus is a proper remedy only where there is a specific legal right, and there is not a specific legal remedy adequate to the enforcement of the right. It is generally a sufficient answer to an application for the writ that there is another specific and adequate remedy. Ex parte Jones, supra.There is no decision of this court, and no principle of the common law, which would warrant us in granting this motion. It is neither more nor less than an application to reverse a judgment of the Circuit Court, in a matter of which it had jurisdiction, and in the absence of the party in whose favor the judgment was rendered. If the judgment is erroneous, to the *362prejudice of the petitioners, it can be corrected or reversed on appeal, and that remedy must be pursued.

¶2The application is refused, with costs.

/49/ala/360 · .json · Public domain